Flood models: the need for an integrated approach

Summary

Any scientific understanding of the Biblical Flood must address the hydrology and
sedimentation that occurred during the Flood and in subsequent years as the Earth
settled down. A number of scientific models previously proposed for the Flood are
summarised and assessed. Further progress will require an integrated approach from
many scientific disciplines. As well as the traditional contribution from the geological
sciences, coordinated inputs from a number of other disciplines will be needed such
as fluid flow, heat transfer, plate tectonics, vulcanology, planetary astronomy,
and mathematics, in order to build a possible Flood hypothesis. Any model for the
Flood can only be speculative. A coordinated approach will impact current Flood
models that have accepted the sequential nature of the geological column and that
have put the Flood/post Flood boundary far down in such conjectural reconstructions.

Introduction

Traditionally, for scientists operating from an evolutionary premise, the geological
sciences have provided the chronological framework to allow other scientific disciplines
to place their data in an historical context. The main principle of uniformitarianism
has motivated research into present geological processes so that rocks these scientists
regard as ancient can be interpreted in terms of such processes. In the last thirty
years there has been a major shift in thinking amongst evolutionary geologists with
the development of plate tectonics—all modern geological processes are now
seen as part of a global interaction of plate tectonics, which itself has been adopted
as the interpretative geological paradigm.

By contrast, scientists working from a creation perspective view all significant
geological events within a Biblical chronological framework. Nevertheless, there
is still a need for scientific models of these events because the Biblical record
is not exhaustive, nor is it intended as a scientific treatise. In particular, creation
scientists need to understand the Biblical Flood by addressing the hydrology and
sedimentation that occurred during the cataclysm and in the subsequent years as
the Earth settled down. Modern geological processes, while instructive, do not have
the same standing as for long-age uniformitarian scientists. This is because geological
processes during Creation and the Flood were different from what we observe today.
So creationists have a greater need to develop an integrated approach from many
scientific disciplines. As well as the geological sciences, inputs from many other
disciplines are needed, such as fluid flow, heat transfer, plate tectonics, vulcanology,
planetary astronomy, and mathematics. In this paper we summarise the current state
of a number of scientific models that have been proposed to describe the world-wide
Flood and to integrate our understanding of science from the Biblical perspective.

The vapour canopy model

The vapour canopy model of the Flood is the one that has held greatest sway in scientific
creationismsince serious research began in the 1960s.
The book The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris,1 first published in 1961, and Whitcomb’s later The World
that Perished (1996) explain this view.2
The vapour canopy theory is that the Earth’s atmosphere was surrounded by
a water vapour blanket that collapsed at the onset of the Flood. Dillow has extensively
explored this concept theoretically.3
This model has led the field for a number of years, but has difficulties in accounting
for the large amount of catastrophic upheaval in the Earth at the beginning and
through the Flood year.

Catastrophic upheaval is evident, for instance, at the Old Red Sandstone rock formation
from Loch Ness to the Orkneys in Scotland where an area 2500 m deep and 160 km across,
contains countless fish, buried in contorted and contracted positions, as though
in convulsion.4,5
There is all the evidence of catastrophic burial by processes (it would seem) of
greater power than that provided by the vapour canopy theory. Although there may
be some substance in these objections to the vapour canopy proposal, it should be
noted that this model of the Flood, though it predicts late drowning of creatures
by rising floodwaters, should not be regarded as tranquil. Indeed in this model,
the rising waters would be extremely turbulent, and probably involve vast surging
tidal waves. Nevertheless it is still difficult to explain the major fossil strata
by this method.

Consequently some, such as Garner,6
Garton,7 Tyler,8,9 and Robinson,10,11 object,
not only to the vapour canopy model of the Flood,12
but also (more fundamentally) to the basic premise that the Flood caused most of
the fossils. Their objection arises from their belief that the geological column
represents a real time sequence (though on a fast time-scale of the one-year Flood
followed by many post-Flood disasters). Because there is evidence deep in this geological
column that many animals were alive on land, and yet are buried above waterborne
sediments, they propose that most of the geological column was deposited after the
Flood. Thus, they propose that the Flood removed all trace of land air-breathing
creatures and that most of the fossils found on the Earth were buried by post-Flood
catastrophes. Known as the ‘European Flood model’, we have sought to
show in a companion article13 that
Biblically, this is greatly straining the straightforward meaning of Genesis 6–9.
Here we seek to show that to regard the geological column as a true chronological
record is at best a questionable assumption. We agree with Froede that there needs
to be a complete rethink of how to interpret the geological layering so evident
in the rocks.14,15
Woodmorappe rightly points out that the way the supposed ten periods are assigned
can be quite subjective.16 In this
paper we question whether we really yet have any firm grasp of the way all the strata
have been laid down. Even the basic notion that ‘bottom is oldest’ is
not proven.17

One of the major difficulties raised by Flood models of fossilisation (including
the canopy theory) is the problem of dinosaur nest sites within the fossil record.
These certainly pose quite a difficult problem to solve in the context of Flood
sedimentation.

Calculated vertical temperature profile for a vapor canopy model of the Earth’s
atmosphere compared with the temperature profile today (after Rush and Vardiman).50 Theoretical models of postulated
pre-Flood vapour canopies are used to explore whether it is feasible to postulate
significant quantities of water in the atmosphere above the Earth. In this example,
only 50 cm of precipitable water is stored but this raises the surface temperature
of the Earth to above 100°C.

Garner points out that the eggs are obviously in neat patterns, suggesting that
they have to be regarded as in situ, and cannot be accounted for by sediments
deposited elsewhere and transported in before final fossilisation.6
Garton shows that there are dinosaur tracks all the way from the Cretaceous to the
Tertiary and Quaternary rocks.7 He concludes that this
must be evidence of post-Flood activity. Tyler believes the vast chalk deposits
(usually taken to be the crushed remains of marine shells) need decades to form
and also concludes that the Cretaceous is post-Flood.8

Because of such evidence, critics of Flood fossilisation in general, and the Whitcomb
and Morris model of the Flood in particular, have maintained that the Flood/post-Flood
boundary is low down in the geological record, in the Paleozoic, as explained by
Tyler.9 (This geological column term is used simply
for communication purposes. The order of the strata may well be incorrect for reasons
outlined later.) Such critics have maintained that all Flood models which attribute
most fossils to the Flood, are incorrect, and propose that the Flood left no trace
whatsoever of all air-breathing land creatures—the so called
‘blot out’ theory.

In a companion paper,13 we give important Biblical
reasons why fossils are the most natural evidence expected from the Flood. However
these authors are right to criticise the vapour canopy model if it does not provide
enough sedimentation to achieve such a vast thickness of fossil-containing strata.
This is why we discuss other models in this paper, which, we believe, yield a more
plausible picture of the Flood year.

The hydroplate model

The hydroplate theory has the advantage of explaining great devastation in the first
40 days. This theory for the catastrophic formation of the sedimentary rock layers
during the Flood has been proposed by Dr Walter Brown (former chief of Science and
Technological Studies at the Air War College, and Associate Professor at the U.S.
Air Academy).18–20

The main proposal for the origin of the Flood waters is massive catastrophism in
the first 40 days of the Flood. (We agree with the European Flood proponents that
the initial devastation was exceedingly great, but we dispute that there remains
no evidence of the mabbul and its effects on creatures in the geological
record.) The Brown hypothesis18,20
is that the Earth’s crust was fractured (maybe by an impact), releasing vast
subterranean waters (the ‘fountains of the great deep’)
under great pressure into the atmosphere, perhaps as high as 30 km. Brown’s
model essentially deals with water, but in the following continental drift phase
includes volcanic activity21 as
a result of the fast tectonic movement caused by the widening rupture in the Earth’s
crust. Thus he states:

‘In some regions, the high temperatures and pressures formed metamorphic rock.
Where this heat was intense, rock melted. This high pressure magma squirted up through
cracks between broken blocks, producing other metamorphic rocks. Sometimes it escaped
to the earth’s surface producing volcanic activity and “floods”
of lava outpourings such as we see on the Columbia and Deccan Plateaus. This was
the beginning of the earth’s volcano activity.’ 22

Brown states further:

‘Shifts of mass upon the earth created stresses and ruptures in and just beneath
the earth’s crust. This was especially severe under the Pacific Ocean, since
the major continental plates all moved toward the Pacific. The portions of the plates
that buckled downward were pressed into the earth’s mantle. This produced
the ocean trenches and the region called the “ring of fire” in and around
the Pacific Ocean. The sharp increase in pressure under the floor of the Pacific
caused ruptures and an outpouring of lava which formed submarine volcanoes called
seamounts.’ 23

Thus the initial rupture of the Earth’s crust under this view would hurl rocks
and sediments in gigantic muddy fountains of water which then lead to intense precipitation
(consistent with
Genesis 7) for the 40 day period. These fountains would eventually be followed
by many large volcanic eruptions in the ‘Ring of Fire’ around the Pacific,
all with the force of Krakatoa. This volcano exploded in 1883 sending rocks and
dust into the atmosphere to a height of 55 km. The explosion was so intense that
it could be heard 4,600 km away. Dust fell at a distance of 5,327 km ten days after
the explosion,24 and a tsunami (tidal
wave) 30 metres high travelled right across the Indian Ocean at 720 km/h.25 Similarly, during the Flood, on top of the water borne
sediments, and sometimes mixed with them, vast layers of magma would be poured out
or catastrophically exploded into the atmosphere.

The rain in the first 40 days of the Flood involved not only the return to the Earth
of the jets of superheated steam ejected into the atmosphere (which would partly
fall as hail and snow), but great quantities of rock debris as well. Many fossils
could have formed within the first few weeks of the Flood in this model. In the
next 110 days, further vast layering, scouring and re-layering of the continents
would occur under the ravages of the Flood waters. The final catastrophic drainage
of the waters occurred at the end of the continental drift phase when, after massive
tectonic upheaval, the land eventually re-appeared as the Earth’s crust found
a new equilibrium. It is significant that
Genesis 8:3 speaks of the waters ‘returning from off
the earth’ (literally ‘going and returning’
in the Hebrew).

Recoil phase of the hydroplate model for the geological events of the flood (from
Brown).51 Rupture of the crust allows
steam and sediment to be ejected as a fountain into the atmosphere, returning to
the Earth as rain. The continents start to move apart.

Some have criticised the rupture phase of the hydroplate model with its vast quantities
of hot steam ejected at enormous speeds into the atmosphere, causing immense rainfall.
However, the ‘explosive mixing of water and lava’10
targeted by these objections, is very possibly how the ‘windows
of heaven’ were opened as described in the Flood account.

Within the context of the hydroplate model, it is entirely feasible that many creatures
would flee in vain to survive. We would expect to find fossil evidence of this,
such as tracks in mud subsequently covered quickly by sediment.26 Furthermore, since it was a full year before Noah came
out of the Ark, there is certainly room within the Genesis account for some late-Flood
and post-Flood disasters as the waters receded. Thus the Grand Canyon may well have
been formed when a vast natural inland lake (left behind after the Flood receded)
burst its banks and scoured out the canyon. In this process, vast quantities of
silt and debris would be carried to the Pacific coast-line.27 Brown,18 describing the
aftermath of the hydroplate catastrophe, agrees with Austin that the Grand Canyon
formed in this way. The Toutle Canyon was observed to form catastrophically in a
similar manner, but on a much smaller scale, after the Mount St Helen’s eruption
in 1980. Such catastrophic processes may account for the burrows of small marine
creatures in rocks at one horizon, but which are now covered by further sediments.

Catastrophic plate tectonics and runaway subduction

The theory of catastrophic plate tectonics (CPT) was initiated by Baumgardner,28 and later developed in conjunction
with other creation scientists.29
Reed et al. provide a good review of plate tectonics as interpreted within
a catastrophic framework,30 but
make the point in their conclusions that the original driving mechanism behind continental
plate displacement and subduction is not known. CPT theory starts with the assumption
that the Flood was initiated when slabs of oceanic crust broke loose and subducted
along thousands of kilometres of pre-Flood continental margins. It is suggested
that subducting slabs of material locally deformed and heated the mantle, locally
lowering its viscosity. With lowered viscosity, the subduction rate increased—and
this in turn caused the mantle to heat up even more. This, it is argued, led to
a thermal runaway instability, and allowed subduction rates of metres per second.
Baumgardner shows that rapid, large-scale subduction would furthermore initiate
global-scale flow of the mantle beneath the Earth’s crust. This in turn would
cause strong convection currents in the Earth’s outer core and explain how
geomagnetic reversals took place.31,32 Magnetic reversals of course had
been thought to have taken place slowly over millions of years on the evolutionary
geological timescale. However, the extension by Humphreys of the CPT theory of Baumgardner
to account for the Earth’s magnetism gives an underlying cause for the quick
reversals. In that evidence for rapid reversals has been discovered in thin lava
flows, the magnetic field deductions from CPT theory gives considerable confidence
in the theory of continental plate collision and subduction as being a primary mechanism
for major global upheaval during the Flood.

Runaway subduction of the oceanic plate into the Earth’s mantle drives metres-per-second
motion of the rigid lithospheric plates in the catastrophic plate tectonic model
of the Flood.

It is only recently that the implications of the mathematical modelling of CPT have
been successfully understood. It was necessary to solve numerically the stiff partial
differential equations governing the behaviour of silicate rock material, taking
full account of the large dependence of effective rock viscosity on temperature
and strain rate. The highly nonlinear relationship between viscosity and stress
implies that the effective viscosity decreases sharply once the material is subjected
to a strong shear stress. This liquefying effect increases dramatically as the temperature
increases, even though it may only be at 60% of its melting temperature. An important
feedback mechanism then comes into play. As the cold upper boundary layer of the
Earth’s mantle sinks into the hot mantle underneath (due to the liquefying
stress), it heats the mantle locally. This reduces the viscosity even further, thus
allowing the plate to sink faster. The two effects (strong shear stress and the
peeling away of the upper cool boundary of the mantle) effectively reinforce each
other, and consequently thermal runaway begins. As Baumgardner states in his paper:

‘A compelling logical argument in favor of this mechanism [subduction] is
the fact that there is presently no ocean floor on the earth that predates the fossiliferous
strata. In other words all the basalt that comprises the upper five kilometers or
so of today’s igneous rocks has cooled from the molten state since sometime
after the Flood cataclysm began.’ 28

He then asks where the pre-Flood seafloor went. The model convincingly suggests
the answer that the original sea-floor was catastrophically subducted, so that we
now have a relatively new sea-floor—formed as igneous flows from the Earth’s
mantle deposited in very thick (five kilometres or so) layers at the bottom of the
present-day oceans.

The hydroplate theory previously discussed and CPT are usually regarded as mutually
exclusive. But this need not be so. There is considerable room for volcanic activity
during the continental drift phase of the hydroplate theory.33 The breaking of the Earth’s crust (possibly by
an impact) may well have released large volumes of subterranean waters into the
atmosphere, and led to the rapid movement of the broken continental plates from
the impact centre. Subsequently, a subduction mechanism may then have taken over
from the initial catastrophe, driving continuous upheavals in the Earth’s
mantle under the seas, and sustaining the disaster for the rest of the Flood year.

The importance of research in sedimentology

Temperature profiles associated with subduction of oceanic slab into the mantle
of the Earth (from Baumgardner).52
Computer models of the Earth’s mantle demonstrate the conditions that would
be necessary to initiate runaway subduction.

Guy Berthault has produced some landmark research into sedimentology. First on a
small scale, but more recently on a larger scale, he has studied the deposition
of heterogeneous mixtures from flowing water.34
His results indicate that different sediment layers do not deposit one after the
other in a vertical direction, but all at the same time horizontally.35 Applying these findings to the Grand Canyon, the different
layers would have been deposited under strong water currents and laid down horizontally,
not vertically. Thus many of the layers of the canyon would have been deposited
simultaneously, and do not necessarily represent different periods of time. If proved,
this has immense implications for the whole theory of sediment formation world-wide.
Clearly we must avoid saying that all sediments were laid down this way. The vast
coal seams would be one example of deposition in a non-flowing environment. However
Berthault’s sedimentology experiments have overturned previous belief that
layers form one after the other in stages. Such surprising results may help us understand
why the apparent order of the so-called geological column is reversed in some parts
of the world.

Furthermore it is interesting to note that the preliminary results of the work by
Baumgardner and Barnette support Berthault’s basic premise.36 They considered the simplified problem of a shallow,
homogeneous and inviscid fluid (water) flowing over a rotating sphere. Their fully
transient solution to this problem produced some unexpectedly fast flowing regions
of strong cyclonic gyres with velocities of 40–80 m/sec. The effect of such
fast flowing currents on deposits of material carried with the water is not yet
understood, but this shows that there is a great deal to be done with heterogeneous
flows where the shallow water assumption is lifted. Generic studies, both experimental
and numerical, are needed.

A method for classifying rock formations without direct appeal to the geological
column (with collapsed time-scales) has been proposed by Walker.37 This method advocates different types of flood formations
as the waters rose and subsided. The hydroplate method or Baumgardner’s approach
can both be used as possible driving mechanisms for the Flood within such a classification.

A possible Flood fossilisation scenario

It is vital to remember that no one theory is probably entirely adequate to reckon
with all the data, but nevertheless, one can speculate about possible answers to
perceived problems. For example, Garner has rightly pointed out the difficulty with
certain basalt flows appearing ‘late on’ in the supposed geological
column.38 Since these seem to require
a sub-aerial environment, one can understand his conclusion that the post-Flood
boundary must be earlier than the basalts. Thus with the water drained from the
land, the subsequent volcanic activity in the Mesozoic and Cainozoic would be sub-aerial.
But if we accept the hydroplate model of the initiation of the Flood, then the first
40 days would involve immense destruction consistent with the Paleozoic (some even
include most of the Precambrian39)
record. The waters of the oceans were still rising, parts of the land were still
not covered entirely by water—there may even have been a brief lull. Certainly
this is not inconsistent with the account in
Genesis 7:17–24. In the next 110 days, immense volcanic upheaval occurred
on the land masses, but still not all the land was finally covered. At the same
time, upheavals of the land masses were also occurring, so that some of the land
that had been covered was exposed, albeit briefly—of the order of weeks.

It is conceivable that dinosaur tracks could have been made in this time. Garton
rightly points out that these dinosaur tracks go right through the Mesozoic and
into the Cainozoic.7 Under our scenario, tracks in
the Mesozoic are consistent with ground still being available at the late stage
of the 150 days. Some tracks may already have been made earlier, just after the
40 days’ initial onslaught, and then pushed upwards when the mountains rose.
Similarly, tracks showing no sign of chaotic motion in the Pyrenees in Spain40 may also be at the late stage of the 150 days, again
pushed upwards as the mountains rose. Finally the waters with vast amounts of debris
and sediment overpowered these large creatures which, not surprisingly are buried
in the same part of the strata as the later tracks and usually ‘higher’
up the column. We do not claim that such a scenario explains everything. There is
a vast amount of work still to be done to understand the mechanisms involved. But
we suggest that a willingness to expect and look for the unusual is always important
for advance in scientific research.

Dinosaur tracks and nests during the Flood?

Egg-laying by dinosaurs in Mesozoic strata,6 well above
what appears to be the initial fossils of marine creatures in the lower strata,
challenges the view that most of the fossils were formed by the Flood. Robinson
gives further evidence of other apparently in situ fossils including plant
roots in the Jurassic as well as marine fossils apparently in situ right
up through Cretaceous into Tertiary rock.11 Robinson
argues against the vapour canopy model, stating:

‘The sudden death of the dinosaurs and other animals at the end of the Cretaceous
is a phenomenon for which the received Flood model [i.e. the vapour canopy model
of Whitcomb and Morris] has no explanation.’
41

However, the model suggested by Robinson, Garner, Garton and others involving many
post-Flood catastrophes gives no real answer either to the sudden death of dinosaurs
in the Cretaceous. Their post-Flood fossilisation hypothesis, in our view, becomes
a serious scientific problem.

Marine fossils are found high up in mountains in the Alps, often deposited with
great violence (as suggested by the Jurassic marine fossils at lower altitude on
the North East Coast of Yorkshire near Whitby). The burial of large dinosaurs, by
their thousands in Alberta and Montana,6 South Dakota,
Kansas and Colorado42 with vast
continental sedimentation (in some places thousands of feet thick) would not be
possible without causing gigantic upheaval in other parts of the Earth. It seems
inconceivable that post-Flood disasters could deposit such thick strata without
causing violent effects all round the world. The scale, depth and the sheer number
of fossils argues strongly that these must be part of the Flood. Rather than forcing
the interpretation of mabbul to mean the removal of all possible evidence
of any creatures (the ‘blot out’ theory—to allow suggested post-Flood
activity), it seems wiser to question whether we have properly understood the scientific
evidence.

In his article, Robinson states that Oard’s post-Cretaceous model for the
Flood/post-Flood boundary is ‘not a straightforward interpretation of Scripture’.43 He argues that the position
on the geologic column whereby the Flood killed the dinosaurs is ‘a paradigm
constraining the interpretation of Scripture’. However, the alternative
position he advocates, of entirely blotting out all animal remains without trace
is, in our view, forcing a tenuous meaning on the word mabbul. This and
the requirement of post-Flood disasters on a continental scale are leading to a
much greater difficulty in the natural interpretation of Scripture.

We suggest that the burial of the dinosaurs by Flood waters is consistent with the
evidence. We have suggested, as one option, that the dinosaurs and their nests were
buried late in the Flood. Other scenarios could be possible. For example, sea creatures
may have been buried by vast submarine landslides,44
which were then pushed above sea-level in the first few days of the Flood. At the
same time, sediments containing dinosaurs buried in the early stages of the Flood
may have then been transported only a short distance across the newly exposed submarine
deposits. It seems clear that some dinosaurs must have been buried by catastrophic
waterborne sediment, at least in the case of the Mongolian examples of burial in
the Cretaceous layers.45

A third option, and possibly the most plausible view, for the occurrence of dinosaur
tracks late in the strata is that advocated by Garton.46
He suggests that large creatures (including dinosaurs) were trapped in the floating
Carboniferous forests. The evidence for these vast islands of vegetation carried
by the heaving seas seems to be particularly strong.47
Garton maintains that these creatures swarmed the inhospitable land in the final
stages of the Flood. (In that he allows a few creatures to have survived the first
40 days, we presume he does not regard the ‘blotting out’ to be fully
comprehensive.) This option explains the apparent anomalies and suggests that there
may have been some protection from the initial inundation from above in the early
stages of the Flood. Scheven’s excellent work on floating mats of vegetation
seems to explain the Carboniferous coal measures very ably. It is conceivable that
as these mats struck land, the continued pounding of the seas as the waters rose
to their maximum height could cause violent deposition of sediments with vast ocean
waves criss-crossing the continents. The waters at this stage were not necessarily
tranquil. In fact, this is most unlikely. Great geological activity seems to have
been going on still, even though the rains had stopped. The bringing up of the mountains
and the sinking of the valleys (Psalm
104:8 ‘The mountains ascend, the valleys descend’)
occurred immediately after the earth was finally covered (Psalm
104:6).48

It is therefore entirely conceivable that further giant mudslides trapped the dinosaurs
as the rafts struck land in the final stages of the 150 days, or that some escaped
onto land, only to be buried as the rising waters finally covered the land. The
burial of birds in the later strata is all consistent with the final stages of the
150 days, where no land was available.

Conclusion—an integrated approach needed

It is important that all scientific disciplines be utilised to understand the possible
processes of the Flood. It is not only geology that should be considered. Hydrodynamics
also must play a part in understanding sedimentation processes. Berthault has rightly
stated ‘Determination of initial hydraulic conditions from sedimentary
structures, resulting from sedimentological data is, therefore, a research priority.’
49 Today, in the experience of the
lead author (in fluid dynamics and thermodynamics research), a multi-disciplined
approach is usually needed before scientific advances can be made in the understanding
of complicated and unusual phenomena. Progress is not generally possible when it
is insisted that only experts of one discipline can solve the underlying physics
of a particular problem.

The modelling of the flow of heterogeneous mixtures with the full laws of conservation
of energy, mass, momentum, is one of the greatest challenges that computational
fluid dynamics has faced. A very careful and thorough approach is demanded when
the particle size of the material carried with the water varies widely. The problem
involves materials of different densities, different viscosities, with very large
variations in local Reynolds number (convection divided by viscous diffusion) and
hydraulic conditions. Furthermore, boundary layers have to be modelled with particular
attention to the possible change from turbulent to laminar flow. The experiments
of Berthault have already clearly shown that surprising lamination can occur in
the sediment deposits from such flows. These conditions now need to be modelled
by fluid dynamicists and mathematicians, so an understanding of the larger picture
can emerge by carefully constructed mathematical models.

On the larger scale modelling of solid earth geophysics, we acknowledge the impressive
work already under way with the investigations of Baumgardner and Barnette.36 Interaction between geologists and other scientists
(particularly those researching in fluid dynamics), is essential if there is to
be progress in Flood geology, beyond (the not unnecessary) basic description of
what rocks and fossils are found at particular locations. Only as there is greater
interaction between the relevant scientific disciplines will some of the
unanswered problems of the Biblical Flood models be solved.

Other objections to the vapour canopy model concern the latent
heat of such vapourisation—see
Vardiman, L., An analytical young-earth flow model of the ice sheet formation
during the ‘ice age’; in: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference
on Creationism, Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, pp. 561–568, 1994, and
Vardiman, L., A conceptual transition model of the atmospheric global
circulation following the Genesis Flood; in: Proceedings of the Fourth International
Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh Pennsylvania, pp. 569–580,
1994. Return to text.

Humphreys, D.R., Physical
mechanisms for reversals of the earth’s magnetic field during the Flood; in:
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, Creation
Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 129–142, 1990.
Return to text.

It has been argued that
Psalm 104:6–9 is referring to the third day of the Creation Week. However
the context of
Psalm 104:8–9 is of a perpetual decree that the waters ‘may
not pass over’ (Hebrew abhar). The parallel passages
Isaiah 54:9 and
Jeremiah 5:22 use the same word (abhar) and refer to the Rainbow
Covenant concerning the sea not being allowed to cross over the boundary of the
shore. Thus there is a good case that although
Psalm 104:1–5 is referring to Creation,
Psalm 104:6–9 is speaking of the Flood. Whitcomb,
Ref. 2, p. 40–41. See also Taylor, C.V., Did mountains really rise according
to Psalm 104:8? Journal of Creation 12(3):312–313,
1998, and discussion in Journal of Creation 13(1):68–71,
1999. Return to text.

Brown, W.T., The fountains of the great deep; in: Proceedings
of the First International Conference on Creationism, Volume 1, Creation Science
Fellowship, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pp. 23–38, 1986. Return to
text.

Manna from heaven? Because this site and the information it contains is free, you might think so. However, lots of hard work went into producing it. Your gifts help to produce this ‘manna’ for others. Support this site